I don't think it's necessarily as much about killing (for most) as it is about winning. And I don't think that's really a new development in SOI PvP. It's just that winning and 'antagonistic roleplay' in a black versus white setting both usually equate to killing your opponent.

bjg2k1us wrote:I don't think it's necessarily as much about killing (for most) as it is about winning. And I don't think that's really a new development in SOI PvP. It's just that winning and 'antagonistic roleplay' in a black versus white setting both usually equate to killing your opponent.

This is pretty true for me. The orcs have been kicking our ass, I know there is a ton of veteran players over there I want to beat. I kinda want to win. That doesn't necessarily mean perming people. But with the setting, its hard to win without killing.

The orcs have the option to make slaves of people (though I dont know how that is working out.) The humans can just kill really.

bjg2k1us wrote:I don't think it's necessarily as much about killing (for most) as it is about winning. And I don't think that's really a new development in SOI PvP. It's just that winning and 'antagonistic roleplay' in a black versus white setting both usually equate to killing your opponent.

This is pretty true for me. The orcs have been kicking our ass, I know there is a ton of veteran players over there I want to beat. I kinda want to win. That doesn't necessarily mean perming people. But with the setting, its hard to win without killing.

The orcs have the option to make slaves of people (though I dont know how that is working out.) The humans can just kill really.

If you win the engagement and your enemy has to retreat, haven't you "won"? Or is this some kind of elusive, larger win?

This is just my perspective, and I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority, but I think that the idea of winning is something much more suited to Call of Duty than an RPI.

bjg2k1us wrote:I don't think it's necessarily as much about killing (for most) as it is about winning. And I don't think that's really a new development in SOI PvP. It's just that winning and 'antagonistic roleplay' in a black versus white setting both usually equate to killing your opponent.

This is pretty true for me. The orcs have been kicking our ass, I know there is a ton of veteran players over there I want to beat. I kinda want to win. That doesn't necessarily mean perming people. But with the setting, its hard to win without killing.

The orcs have the option to make slaves of people (though I dont know how that is working out.) The humans can just kill really.

If you win the engagement and your enemy has to retreat, haven't you "won"? Or is this some kind of elusive, larger win?

This is just my perspective, and I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority, but I think that the idea of winning is something much more suited to Call of Duty than an RPI.

Its very much an IC thing to have victory and kill your enemy. Which means it fits just fine into the RPI theme. It always has and always will. You are actually conflicting with what should be the natural Rp of the mud by saying that killing should be rare and that letting your enemy survive and come back another day and beat you should be common place.

That is very much an ooc feeling affecting IC actions. I feel I'm playing my character more truly when I'm fighting to kill. I'm not being pvp hungry, like I said I've killed once in all my years mudding. I've passed up a few kills in other RPI's because my character didn't have such a black and white war to direct its actions.

I've explained before that there's lots and lots of ways to RP having your character give their all in combat without doggedly chasing down every enemy to deliver the final blow. Maybe your character is wounded, maybe he's dog tired, maybe the retreating character gets away and you can't find their tracks, there are a million plausible, IC reasons that maybe you'd have a victory without chasing down and killing a character.

Is killing your enemy really your character's number one concern, or is it for his own health, is it for the health of his comrades that may have been wounded in the fighting, could it be for his wife at home, could it be a fear of what he might run into if he goes after an enemy in Mirkood when he's wounded himself? When you've just won a fight and your enemy is broken and fleeing, is charging after them the first thing on every character's mind? Maybe a few, but I think by and large most people are going to tend to their own wounds think of the fact that they're still standing and thank their lucky stars they are.

Last edited by Brian on Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For me the appeal of SoI was the viability of a non-combatant in day to day gameplay.Currently this seems more or less undoable unless you rely on sneak/hide or are willing to spends a vastly disproportionate amount of time not crafting.

cfelch wrote:For me the appeal of SoI was the viability of a non-combatant in day to day gameplay.Currently this seems more or less undoable unless you rely on sneak/hide or are willing to spends a vastly disproportionate amount of time not crafting.

For all intents and purposes we are a hack'n'slash in alpha.

We're living in a frontier outpost. People are making Minas Tirith concepts and playing them out in Utterby. It's not that it's hack'n'slash. That's a pretty derogatory way to refer to quite a lot of roleplay. It's just that most people aren't recognizing that the sphere is more Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/Norse than it is Greco-Roman, like you could've relied on in Minas Tirith. It's not that there aren't noncombatants, it's that the world's moderately dangerous and you have to accept that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd A militia should probably be a requirement for Citizenship in Utterby. The cultures we're representing/the cultures Tolkien based the Northmen off of aren't the ones you're used to, necessarily.

That doesn't make it hack'n'slash. It just makes it higher danger than you'd like.

Kory, a sizable amount of the human sphere have zero interest in combat, in PVP, in hunting, in that sort of thing. If you force them to participate (outside of world ending events) they will simply wander off.

Some gravitate towards the quieter life because they cannot compete with the group that does it on a daily basis. We will never strike the killing blow, know the way through the Mirk, have the elf-wrought armor, wield the barrow-wight blade. We just can not dedicate the time to get that far and when we do we are relegated to the red-shirt brigade, to NPCs, it is quite frankly, boring.

Every time, in previous editions, combat was a rampant charge to get the first hit in, after that you are simply there, watching a very boring novel unfold with the same chapters. If a compulsory militia is formed, the majority will just be a warm body used for strength projection or a damage soak. I foresee it doing more harm then good unless serious effort is made outside of combat to draw them in to the whole brothers-in-arms role.

Hawkwind wrote:Kory, a sizable amount of the human sphere have zero interest in combat, in PVP, in hunting, in that sort of thing. If you force them to participate (outside of world ending events) they will simply wander off.

Some gravitate towards the quieter life because they cannot compete with the group that does it on a daily basis. We will never strike the killing blow, know the way through the Mirk, have the elf-wrought armor, wield the barrow-wight blade. We just can not dedicate the time to get that far and when we do we are relegated to the red-shirt brigade, to NPCs, it is quite frankly, boring.

Every time, in previous editions, combat was a rampant charge to get the first hit in, after that you are simply there, watching a very boring novel unfold with the same chapters. If a compulsory militia is formed, the majority will just be a warm body used for strength projection or a damage soak. I foresee it doing more harm then good unless serious effort is made outside of combat to draw them in to the whole brothers-in-arms role.

You're correct in most every single way, and I absolutely agree. I think you remember who I played on a post-apocalyptic MUD wherein it was literally 'do or die' against NPCs, much less other players. I'm surprised how much you remember of my PCs, and then how -little- you remember of them to. I've no interest in forcing non-combatant PLAYERS to play in combat roles, and I've never attempted it, even when I had the opportunity.

I'm just pointing out that we're being incredibly untrue to our setting. We're filling in the gaps, sometimes, and other times we've already got a historical culture put before us. It is what it is.

It's easy enough to pick out the people that won't be included in a Germanic/Anglo-Saxon-style militia. Older men/women in general. If you put rules in for a militia/make it a requirement, it's easy enough to avoid it, in multiple ways. You might try reading the link provided; it explains an in-character way to do it(pay a fine). Otherwise, people who make characters that don't fit the requirements will naturally, of course, be excluded.

There's no need to act like it's an attempt to scoop up every OOCly disinclined player and put them there, rather than an attempt to see culture put in, and give another means of IC conflict/background for the world our characters live in. You do know me better than that, at least.

ETA:It's not as if, when steel was banned in Angost, every combat player quit. You can create rules that cause in-GAME cultural conflict without causing out-of-game player quitting.

Utterby, being a free settlement of free men, shall hold no thralls, nor permit them to be held in its domain, nor Utterby itself.

Utterby shall maintain a citizenry, granted certain rights in exchange for certain responsibilities. Any law-abiding Man may become a citizen of Utterby by swearing an Oath**rules for the Oath yet-to-be-determined, as I didn't get that far*

In Utterby and Utterby's domain the peace will be kept, and those breaking it needlessly will be levied with fines and punishments at the discretion of Utterby's Guard.

In Utterby and Utterby's domain theft shall be dealt with severely, with fines and punishments leading from whippings to hangings.

In Utterby and Utterby's domain assaults will not be tolerated, with fines and punishments leading from jail time to whippings.

In Utterby and Utterby's domain murder will be dealt with harshly, with a penalty of beheading or hanging. The Captain may lessen the sentence depending upon circumstances.

Any citizen of Utterby may appeal their punishments to the Captain or Master of Utterby, though those appealing for lesser crimes may find the punishments more severe.

Dooms of Commerce

Utterby's domain is held in common, and all may take and work from that that it produces and holds.

The right to export is held solely by the Master, the Lodge, the Guard, and property holders within Utterby.

Citizens of Utterby may freely import goods into Utterby, while strangers must buy instead from citizens or other strangers.

Citizens of Utterby may work for any landholder or institution within Utterby, while strangers may work freely for themselves, eachother, or the citizens of Utterby.

Dooms of Defense

Utterby is all that extends from the central square, to the surrounding walls and docks. Within Utterby, all land is owned, by either those that hold the deeds and papers to their land, or else the Master of Utterby.

Utterby's domain is that which extends from the walls of Utterby to the far bank of the surrounding rivers.*this needs changing/editing, but was shorthand for 'that place where people go to gather wood from/hunt in,' mostly.

Utterby's citizenry shall maintain two separate levies, the fyrd and the auxiliaries.

Utterby's fyrd will be formed of able-bodied men and volunteer women, aged sixteen to fifty. They will be required to defend Utterby and Utterby's domain in emergencies, assembling for four rings of the bell. The fyrd will maintain a proper weapon, a shield, and a bow.

Utterby's auxiliary will be formed of able-bodied women, boys too young, men too old, or the otherwise crippled or incapable. They will be required to defend Utterby itself from assault or disaster, assembling for five rings of the bell. Members of the auxiliary will be required to maintain a bow.

Utterby's citizenry may further volunteer for the militia, required to maintain armor but given pay in exchange for patrolling outside Utterby's domain.

Utterby shall maintain a full-time Guard for the enforcement of its dooms and the defense of its domains, given pay, lodging, and armor.

Utterby shall maintain one servicable rivercraft, for the defense of Utterby and its waters.

Utterby's citizenry will be required to help maintain Utterby's roads, docks, and defenses, though not for more than four hours in a day, and only two months each year.

I wrote these up God-knows-how-long ago, or maybe I didn't write them up, and someone else did. I'm maintaining plausible deniability, or something. That said, they're pretty heavily second-draft-level, and not fully finished, but essentially citizenry and residency were represented as two different things. Anyone could reside in Utterby, whereas only certain people were Citizens, paying their dues but also gaining certain benefits(and of course helping the in-game economy along by making certain purchases).

There's conduct, military, and economic laws, incredibly loosely based off of the Legal Code of Alfred the Great, and much more based off of Angost's laws/dooms. They're, of course, not in-use in-game. But this is what I mean when I say Utterby needs something to make it more than a joke/pretend sphere.

tehkory wrote:You're correct in most every single way, and I absolutely agree. I think you remember who I played on a post-apocalyptic MUD wherein it was literally 'do or die' against NPCs, much less other players. I'm surprised how much you remember of my PCs, and then how -little- you remember of them to. I've no interest in forcing non-combatant PLAYERS to play in combat roles, and I've never attempted it, even when I had the opportunity.

I'm just pointing out that we're being incredibly untrue to our setting. We're filling in the gaps, sometimes, and other times we've already got a historical culture put before us. It is what it is.

It's easy enough to pick out the people that won't be included in a Germanic/Anglo-Saxon-style militia. Older men/women in general. If you put rules in for a militia/make it a requirement, it's easy enough to avoid it, in multiple ways. You might try reading the link provided; it explains an in-character way to do it(pay a fine). Otherwise, people who make characters that don't fit the requirements will naturally, of course, be excluded.

There's no need to act like it's an attempt to scoop up every OOCly disinclined player and put them there, rather than an attempt to see culture put in, and give another means of IC conflict/background for the world our characters live in. You do know me better than that, at least.

ETA:It's not as if, when steel was banned in Angost, every combat player quit. You can create rules that cause in-GAME cultural conflict without causing out-of-game player quitting.

No idea who you played, all the big names sort of blended in to one giant meta-character in my mind, but I digress. We have always disregarded lore, established canon, gentle staff encouragement. Not all of us, but a good majority from mutants, Haradrim, modern thinking and right to free speech and trial. This is nothing new and will forever be a thorn in our side.

I'm all for injecting some theme appropriate culture in to it, but it has to be more than grab the spear and follow for me while I kill this troll. If such is done IG I'm sure you know me well enough to follow through with it IG and not cry about it on the forums.

As for the link, I know all that, I'm from the area, I slept a night on the slops of Lindisfarne when the tide came in, having imbibed too much of their mead. I do agree that it is a more rustic, homely, dangerous town and that needs to be shown more. But it must come from the top down, not the bottom up. IE, not staff, but the pillars of the community. Those leaders who we follow IG and take examples from, it is and will always be their burden to guide and steer the game in a suitable way, lead and we will follow.

These last few threads on the forums seem to get a lot discussed but very little impact on the happenings IG.

Hawkwind wrote:I'm all for injecting some theme appropriate culture in to it, but it has to be more than grab the spear and follow for me while I kill this troll. I do agree that it is a more rustic, homely, dangerous town and that needs to be shown more. But it must come from the top down, not the bottom up. IE, not staff, but the pillars of the community. Those leaders who we follow IG and take examples from, it is and will always be their burden to guide and steer the game in a suitable way, lead and we will follow.

These last few threads on the forums seem to get a lot discussed but very little impact on the happenings IG.

We'll see what happens, but something needs to. I don't think players have the authority to come up with laws/culture, in the end. They can fill in the blanks, so-to-speak, they can paint-by-numbers, but right now? We don't even have lines. We don't have -dots- for there to be numbers BY!

Some days I'm not even sure we've been given paint.

ETA:I think Orcish culture is different, as it's fundamentally non-human and in no-way based on historical cultures. Human cultures, however, are in desperate need of a top-down help before a bottom-up approach can matter.

I heard recently that staff have already outright banned slavery. SO even orcs can't really have a reasonable alternative to pking out right.

Can staff confirm this and give a reason as to why?

Soi had plenty of opportunities for slavery but it was generally very rare. Even angost had slaves in the form of thralls. If particular types of slavery are not cool, allow other types. If the process of breaking a slave is too gritty then fade to black the whole thing for a few days.

Allow it on a case by case basis. The staff and players can determine if a player can handle being a slave. Generally newbies can't.

Icarus wrote:Yes, staff has always had a no humans in vadok / no orcs in utterby rule. Tis because people abused it on old SOI and invariably created frankly absurd situations.

so what motivation is there for orcs to not just kill everyone they defeat outright? I prefer capturing hostages over the idea of just executing everyone, but if bringing them back just means I'm going to have to kill them anyways, there doesn't seem like much point to it. Is it possible to set up some sort of coded system where humans and orcs could be ransomed back to the other side in exchange for steel and gold? Or at least some way the two sides could communicate without having to wait around enemy territory hoping they are lucky enough to find someone who won't just try to murder them or run away?

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

Icarus wrote:Yes, staff has always had a no humans in vadok / no orcs in utterby rule. Tis because people abused it on old SOI and invariably created frankly absurd situations.

so what motivation is there for orcs to not just kill everyone they defeat outright? I prefer capturing hostages over the idea of just executing everyone, but if bringing them back just means I'm going to have to kill them anyways, there doesn't seem like much point to it. Is it possible to set up some sort of coded system where humans and orcs could be ransomed back to the other side in exchange for steel and gold? Or at least some way the two sides could communicate without having to wait around enemy territory hoping they are lucky enough to find someone who won't just try to murder them or run away?

I like this idea. It gives a reason and incentive for PC's not to kill other PC's outright (though death, codely or not, will always be a part of this game even if people cry otherwise).There's currently a system in place for officers of the Guard to pay the Ironwood. The script could be copied and used as a framework for this. PC prisoners could be transported to a holding area until the ransom is paid. This something that's doable Icarus?

Last edited by Eru on Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

of course, the game will also need to be given a meaningful reason to want to obtain that ransom gold. Could be a good idea for staff to brainstorm money sinks. Give each side the ability to buy steel for 8000cp an ingot, or some high price like that. Once warcraft comes in, maybe highly skilled mercenaries could be hired to help defend forts, in addition to the soldiers recruited through regular means. I'm sure the community could throw out a pretty big list of ideas given the time

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

radioactivejesus wrote:of course, the game will also need to be given a meaningful reason to want to obtain that ransom gold. Could be a good idea for staff to brainstorm money sinks. Give each side the ability to buy steel for 8000cp an ingot, or some high price like that. Once warcraft comes in, maybe highly skilled mercenaries could be hired to help defend forts, in addition to the soldiers recruited through regular means. I'm sure the community could throw out a pretty big list of ideas given the time

I think a cost to paying npc wages in forts would be a really good idea. This way capturing a prisoner and ransoming them back for an obscene amount of wealth can shift the playing field in the battle for forts. More money, more npc firepower.

Icarus wrote:Yes, staff has always had a no humans in vadok / no orcs in utterby rule. Tis because people abused it on old SOI and invariably created frankly absurd situations.

so what motivation is there for orcs to not just kill everyone they defeat outright? I prefer capturing hostages over the idea of just executing everyone, but if bringing them back just means I'm going to have to kill them anyways, there doesn't seem like much point to it.

Humans can be of use in more...esoteric practices.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I goTowards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknownConsider yourself lucky if you think of it as homeYou can move mountains with your misery if you don't

cfelch wrote:For me the appeal of SoI was the viability of a non-combatant in day to day gameplay.Currently this seems more or less undoable unless you rely on sneak/hide or are willing to spends a vastly disproportionate amount of time not crafting.

For all intents and purposes we are a hack'n'slash in alpha.

We're living in a frontier outpost. People are making Minas Tirith concepts and playing them out in Utterby. It's not that it's hack'n'slash. That's a pretty derogatory way to refer to quite a lot of roleplay. It's just that most people aren't recognizing that the sphere is more Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/Norse than it is Greco-Roman, like you could've relied on in Minas Tirith. It's not that there aren't noncombatants, it's that the world's moderately dangerous and you have to accept that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd A militia should probably be a requirement for Citizenship in Utterby. The cultures we're representing/the cultures Tolkien based the Northmen off of aren't the ones you're used to, necessarily.

That doesn't make it hack'n'slash. It just makes it higher danger than you'd like.

By that a meant the focus of the mechanical gameplay experiance.At no point did i intend to belittle the RP that goes on.